THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1904. 'GAMBLING '

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXII, Issue 36, 8 September 1904, Page 17

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1904. 'GAMBLING '

fj E was a wise old logician who said that, in Ift dealing with certain disputed points, the V first assential is right definition of terms ; the second, right definition ; the third, right ffi* definition. The long-drawn internatiCnal dispute over the ' Alabama ' ttarned, for mstance, on the meaniing of the word, ' equip ' in the phrase 'to equip a ship of war.' A further instance, of the need of definition of terms is furnished 1-y a clergyman who wejit from Oamaru last week to enlighten the population of Christchurch in the subject of * Gambling.' But the light thrown upon the stubjeot was, we must confess, far less 1 illuminating than that of a f^cnt and smoking slu&h-lamp. The reverend illumiaatc.'s address seems to have been chiefly an attack oil the fine new Catholic Cathedral, which (he declared) 1 was being partly built with the proceeds of gambling. 1 But the worthy soul quite omitted ' the first essential ' in dealing witSi the question— he did not define the term * gam-bling.' We will supply his, perhaps, not altogether unintentional omission. The sixth volume of "ilie great standard ' Encyclopaedic Dictionary ' (p 699) dcfinejs ' gamble ' ' t,o play a game for a stake.' Now, the term ' to play for a stake ' is obviously a very protean one. It coders actions that are, morally, about as different in intent aild effect as a friendly dig in the fifth rib and the angry stroke of a bowie-knife in the same quarter. It may mean anything from a boys' game of chance for an' alley,' or adults' turn at ' nap ' for brass pins, up to the staking of tens of thousands of pounds on one's ' fancy ' in horse-flesh and the ' Jubilee Plunger's' mad risiks on the ' trembling chances of ' rouge et noir.' A gulf separates the injury done to Gold's honor, to the individual,, to the family, and to society by tlhe different actions that ate loosely termed ' gambling.' .

Tiis brings us to the second offence against logic and goojd sense perpetrated <by the reverend gentleman from Oamaaru who raised such a dense and p.ungetnt smoke around the subject of gambling in Christchurch. 'lhe

■ offence referred to is tfre fallacy of undue assumptibn. He let off la kite without string or tail : in other wonds, he indulged jn a ,vast deal of high-flying invective, without having taken the trouble to state the precise moral principles with which it was connected. But question-begging is easier and cheaper ajiy day than getting to the fundamental reasons of tjhihgs. As reported, his discourse, on • garribling ' assumed that there is no distinction, as to moral aspect, between any one kind of playing for a stake artd any other kind of playing for a stake-that it is all, always, and essentially wiefced ; and that a home in the hell of the damned is alike for the curly-headed urchin who sitakes a brass button against a 'glassey/ and for the heartless rake who flings away his estate on the chance of a horse-race and at one fell stroke reduces his

wife and little family to misery. Throughout, the illmannered clitic of the Bishop of Christchurch coolly .assumes the whole question in dispute. We do net know on what principles he could sustain his attack ; but ifi he hap any, he is welcome to space fn our columns for their exposition and defence. Catholics know their own principles and claim the right to be judged by them. And our position on this point may be summarily expressed in the following statements : Playing for a stake is not in itself unlawful— not intrinsically wrong. It may be done so long as it is comformable to the requirements of justice. And this coridition is -verified when (1) the object is good,, or, at least, not ba<d (' indifferent,' as out theologians say) ; <2) when the person so playing is in a position to 'justly alienate the stake which he texposes ; (3) when the game is freely entered into ; (4) when the play ia free from cheating ; and (5) when there is equality of chance. , For tihe present we content ourselves with remarking (a) that the conditions set forth above are fulfilled in ; bazaars and latteries for Catholic purposes ; (b) that - these are only subsidiary to the great means of raising ■ mioney by direct contiributions- which, in the case of the new Christchurch Cathedral,, have been generous tp a j degree ; and (©) thaU the Biishbp of Christchurch is at , least as strongly opposed as is his Oamaru critic to the , abuses of the game of chance, anJd that, too, on princi- - pies whirh have the merit of being grounded on sane ' oomlniqn-sense, sound logic, apd good theology. For Ihe rest (d) we think; the Bishop of Christchurch and his

clergy and peolpJe are abundantly able to mind their own business without the impertinent interference of a i. clerical meddler from Oamaru.

E 1* ; We look through the report of that ' hot-and-strong ' lecture on ' G-ambling,' and alack ! we find no reference therein to the two greatest forms of gambling of our . day— tto wit,, stock exchange gambling attd insurance gambling. Why this* ominous omission ? Why, moreover, are these particular kinds of gambling 'always ; ' skipped ' by the anti-gambling clergy whein denouncing < the unpardonable sin ? The reason is— if rumor speaketh true— that the good men have a decided weakness for this sort of ' playing for a sftake,' and that ,they

'■ Compound for sins they are irfclittetf to, By damning those they have no mind to.'

If wo were on wagering bent, we would stake Lombard Street against a China orange that Bishop Grimes's critic has a ' gamble ' in a life or fire insurance policy, or in both. In the ' Life of Ardhbishop Magee ' (Anglican) there appears a letter on this subject by the late Dr. Salmon, of Trinity College, Dublin, from which we take the following extract for the especial behoof of the North Otago cleric : ' One form of betting is recognised as a (prudential duty. I mean life assurance. You bet with an asstaramce oompany that you will die ; they let that you will live— ami you are well pleased to loose your bat. Betting is, ydu say, buying a chance ; but suppose each would rather have the chance. than the price Ho T>e paid for it, ..why not ? Two boys want to see a stow. Each has only half the price of admission.

If they toss up, one of them has his wisjh ; if they don't, neither. If people take tickets at a bazaar no one feels the loss of a shilling for a ticket, but if the object to be raffled for is pretty, the winner may feel the gain asi much. A clergyman once at a bazaar, when I professed to be shocked at his having a raffle, declared that he did it on the highest moral grounds. Without a raffle none but a few rich people bad the chance of obtaining the really valuable articles. By ',a raffle he accomplished the Christian duty of putting rich and poor on terms of perfect equality.' So wrote Dr. Salmon. And Archbishop Magee declared the reasoning 'good and very Salmonian.'